Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 security of tenure has been afforded to business tenants so that a lease of commercial premises does not come to an end on the expiry of the contractual term. It continues until terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

The effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 can now be excluded by agreement between the parties provided certain statutory requirements are met.

Prior to the amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which came into force on 1 June 2004 when a new section 38A was inserted into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, it was necessary for the parties to apply to the court for an order authorising an agreement that excluded the security of tenure provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, subject to section 38(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (now repealed). An agreement purporting to exclude the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 would otherwise be void by virtue of section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

The new section 38A amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act introduced in 2004 now makes it possible to exclude the provisions of sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 without a court order.

The agreement to exclude the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 must be preceded by the service of a notice in a prescribed form and the tenant must also make a statutory declaration in the prescribed form before entering into the tenancy.

One Response to “Can you exclude the security of tenure provisions for business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 without a court order?”

I know it’s only a34 or so to do a Land Registry search but why shuold Tessa incur even this modest cost without a client to bill it too?I suppose she could scan it and e-mail it to the Council Tax section for the area where the property is situated with a brief note asking that they forward it to the landlord if they have his address. Then again, if the landlord is a client of Tessa’s (I suppose an existing client might have remarried or otherwise be using a different name) or hopes to become a client then he/she might object to Tessa having informed the council about his business [for all I know the council own the property and it has been illegally sublet]. Might be best either to:-(a) stick it in the bin (or find somewhere to file it away) or,(b) post copies back to the tenant and the landlord (c/o the property) saying that she isn’t sure why she has been sent it and saying she’d be grateful for a telephone call to help clarify things. [Yep, it would probably be cheaper to spend the a34 on the Land Registry search!]

Related Posts

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 were passed to cure the mischief done by landlords in withholding consent unreasonably. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 a tenant may serve a written notice for consent. The landlord then has a […]

The defence of justification is that the words complained of were true in substance and in fact. The defence of justification is a lawful defence under the Defamation Act 1996. The question still remains whether one should be allowed a defence […]

The aim of the tort defamation (and the Defamation Act 1996) is to protect reputation. Reputation is the main feature of a person/business. Many have spent time and money in establishing this reputation. As a consequence, they/it are well known […]

Saracens Solicitors Ltd is registered at Companies House (company no. 6532280) and their registered offices are situated at Strand Bridge House, 140 Strand, London WC2R 1HH. Saracens Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA number. 486657). We use the word 'partner' to refer to a shareholder or director of the company. Saracens Solicitors are also regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and are members of The Law Society, APIL as well as Resolution.

Saracens Solicitors are international solicitors in London. Servicing clients worldwide, building trust through understanding.